Real Youth. Real Views. Real Issues

Criticism needs to be well founded

This piece is in direct response to several of the criticisms levied against my article titled. ‘A woman’s desire to be with a rich man is a step backwards for society’ and more so to my fellow blog writer Christopher Martin France.

Criticism should not be biased, emotional, based on assumptions about the writer’s views and intentions, baseless and worst of all inaccurate. This seemed to be the trend of most of the responses that the piece has managed to gather.

Let me first mention that the lack of the word ‘SOME’ doesn’t obviate the obvious inference of some, especially since no one has ever derived findings of 100% of any population. If a researcher somehow manages to arrive at findings of 100% of the population surveyed, then it would be made pellucidly clear. I hope this quells the issue of the post being about ALL women.

I found it appalling that some responders resorted to insulting remarks and also the inaccuracy and baselessness of parallels drawn to the psychological issue. My associate, Christopher used the term “slut shaming” to refer to the core of what I’ve written. This was spurious to say the least, especially since none of the content remotely warrants that. Slut shaming was inaccurately used as well. It has to do with promiscuity not conscious choices of romance. It’s inexorably, unforgiveable that a man of his stature would so inappropriately, misuse the term. Quite frankly, it seemed to me, to be a desperate cry for feminine empathy.

The comparisons to non-related issues of gender inequality and other social ills that affect women in society were baseless. You cannot draw certain parallels to this situation, in. spite of whatever minimalist co-relation exists, to justify your arguements. The post was based on the female psyche not social issues. An average single woman does not need someone to provide for her, despite being at a disadvantage in terms of income inequality or other social declination. While I agree that women have it much more difficult than men, in general, this does not entitle them to the pedestal they place themselves on.

The post I made isn’t about women who suffer the consequences of a gender biased world. The post isn’t about those women subjected to poverty, looking for an escape. The post isn’t about those women abused and afflicted by the partners. The post is about the deliberate decisions of otherwise sophisticated women, who disguise their choices as romantic when their contrast is true. The post is about the destruction of sentiment and its consequences. The post is about the liars who say their romantic choices are progressive, when in fact studies show is regressive. The post is about successful, average income, even poor women, who have a choice to pursue their own goals under debilitating circumstances much like their male counterparts, who rise from extreme poverty or other similar oppressive circumstances. Men face the same issues of climbing that social ladder, the same way women do. Some things might not be equal, but this should affect romance, not in the least. I find it extremely callous to even remotely link the two.

Christopher also said, “…put love aside for a moment”. To do that would denigrate one of the principles the piece was based on. It was my intention to show that the reducing sentiment is a major problem in relationships. I intended to show that women are losing their independence to their choices in romance. I want to show how unfair and unequal it is to make conscious decisions as such. I want to show what stripping the genuine romance out of relationships does to our humanity, i.e. Marrying for money. How shameful. The converse of men seeking beauty isn’t has been much more progressive compared to women’s choices. Men used to look for specific signs of fertility now they look for physical attractiveness. This is a direct causal effect of mass media manipulation and can be addressed simply. Irrespective, it doesn’t lead to the kind of socially dismantling situations as women’s choices. It’s a degradation of our humanity to put love aside from anything. Love, and I won’t say arguably, is the greatest thing known to mankind. In transcends everything and triumphs even in the most disparaging of situations. To put love aside is an injustice to ourselves. To put love aside is barbaric. The naked truth of striping love from relationships, is that it reduces it to nothing.

Finally I have to dispel the notions of persons referring to my claims as generalisations. I shall repost the links, which make this technically, a scientifically based piece. They’re listed below.

Dr Catherine Hakim from the London School of Economics
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Indiana University cognitive scientist Peter Todd and colleagues from Germany, England and Scotland used a speed-dating session in Germany to look at what people said they wanted in a mate with whom they actually chose.

On a parting note, let me place this circumstance for you all to ponder under the assumption that the females and males are physically attracted to each other and are at a stage in life where they start thinking long term. Note that there are many other kinds of women and there will indefinitely be exceptional circumstances but these are the average, every day, and run in the mill women that we come across constantly.

John is 21 year old above average intelligent and attractive young man with a charismatic personality. He is from a low income family and recently started attending the University of Guyana, reading for a degree in Business Management because that’s the only course that his job as an accounting clerk could accommodate. Very few know that John attends night school and generally associate him with being reluctant to pursue higher learning.

Now take Adam, who is also 21 and is in his final year at the University of Guyana, almost completed reading for a degree in Economics. Adam is a decent looking young man, with mediocre grades, but is from a wealthy family as exhibited by the car he drives and luxurious his lifestyle.

Imagine that there are four sound minded women, who are each approached by both John and Adam, separately in pursuit of romance, not love or a long-term relationship, just a first date, but could lead to either.

Female number one, Ashley, is a 20 year old Biology major at the University of Guyana, in her final year, with a grade point average of 3.8. She is smart and attractive and hails from a middle income family. Which of the two men do you think Ashley would be inclined to date?

Female number two, Rebecca, is a 20 year family girl. She lives with her parents, who are affluent and prominent members of Guyana’s private sector. Rebecca is fairly smart and plays an active role in the affairs of her family enterprise. She professes to be down to earth and genuine, which of the two men do you think she would date?

Female number 3, Annabelle, is a 19 year old girl who works as a cashier at a retail store. Annabelle is from a low class family and was not able to complete here secondary education because her family could not afford it. She still lives with her mother who is a working single parent and has one little brother to take care of. Which of the two men do you think she would prefer to date?

3 thoughts on “Criticism needs to be well founded”

Thank you for finally making your point- that there are some people (in this case women) who use others for their money. Oh my, what lost little sheep we are to not have noticed this before.

Really? an entire post to highlight the fact that there are some who prefer to date a man of wealth rather than an up and coming would be successful man, could this be that women ( and men) look to build relationships with persons who are financially stable because its just common sense?

In your little case studies above it is only obvious that the women will be drawn to the man with more money because not only is he offering the same as the other guy but with the added financial security. If poverty/economic issues shouldn’t be included in the choice of these women then why did you provide info on their economic backgrounds if you’re trying to prove the point that [some] women out rightly chose wealth regardless of social issues. Allow me to play devil’s advocate and match your case studies using common sense and some of my ‘feminine’ intuition:

*Female number one, Ashley, is a 20 year old Biology major at the University of Guyana, in her final year, with a grade point average of 3.8. She is smart and attractive and hails from a middle income family.
– Good grades, promising career, middle income.

Pick? John as they’re academic alike but then her parents aren’t happy because of his income level bringing up again another social issue of being shunned by family,friends/society for choosing the ‘poor’ boy.

*Female number two, Rebecca, is a 20 year family girl. She lives with her parents, who are affluent and prominent members of Guyana’s private sector. Rebecca is fairly smart and plays an active role in the affairs of her family enterprise.

Pick? Adam of course because money marries and usually only dates money – why is that do you think?

*Female number 3, Annabelle, is a 19 year old girl who works as a cashier at a retail store. Annabelle is from a low class family and was not able to complete here secondary education because her family could not afford it. She still lives with her mother who is a working single parent and has one little brother to take care of.

Pick? ADAM! because this girl is looking for a way to elevate herself and family.

You should have stuck to defending your original point of women who just want to be taken care of because they want to be taken care of financially- The 3 case studies ( should it not have been 4?) have just mutated the can of worms you released earlier this week.

“Biased”? “Emotional”? Not in the slightest my friend. I’ve always found it funny; it seems that people like to accuse other people of being emotional in an argument as if that somehow that makes what was said less valid. Matters not because the response was not emotional to begin with. The first thing I’ll say is this post is more of what the previous post should have been. For instance posting your links in the actual article makes a lot more sense for such a “scientifically-based piece” as you say. And no one made this a feminist issue but you. To quote you “Women often say, ‘This is reality, I need to find a man with education, ambition and goals because love won’t pay the bills’. “. Also “What women need to do is to educate themselves, have their own goals and ambitions so they can provide for themselves.” You defend what you say are not generalizations but they clearly are. I cringed at that line alone and as I’ve said I don’t disagree with the intention behind what you wrote, the execution of it was what I feel distorted what may have been a good message.
In a comment you said that this was a “scientifically-based piece”, it certainly didn’t read that way. It came off as an angry, rant directed at everyone and no one in particular.
I find it interesting that this new post is about criticism since I was in disbelief at your response to some of the comments on your post. “Now go read, and if you feel like apologizing later, my inbox is always there.”? Now THAT seemed a bit unnecessary.
I stand by my response especially considering when I first saw the title of your article my first thought was “oh this is gonna be great” but the way it was written just what could have been a great article for me. While I enjoyed the dialogue to some extent this is all I will say because I feel like it is obviously going no where and I don’t have the time right now to dedicate to this back and forth unfortunately.

I mistakenly left one out. The 4th one was supposed to be likened to Annabelle, who on her own, struggled to finish school and is now at University amidst the same adversity as her counterpart. The reason for the case studies was to show that despite the circumstance, the women are more than likely going to choose Adam. Well, that is if you remove the sentiment of romance, love and compatibility, and reduce it to the basic reasoning women increasingly have been applying to dating.

The biased and emotional response was that of Ms. Rahaman, not yours Christopher, while the feminist issue was that of another person. Couldn’t you tell that the specific characteristics addressed broadly the various critics; not that each was directed to everyone? Anyways I may have erred in my unwillingness to quote the sources initially, since I had hoped that, a few clicks on google would suffice readers. Regarding you calling it a rant, I’d ask you to indicate the emotive words used to convey that.